SINCE ITS founding in 1948, the
Organization of American States has defined its two top purposes as "to
strengthen peace and security" and "to consolidate and promote representative
democracy." On the second count, it is failing.

Despite the adoption in 2001 of a
"democracy charter," the
OAS has done little to
stem what has been a steady erosion of free elections, free press and free
assembly in Latin America during the past five years. When Honduras's president
was arrested and dispatched to exile by the military last year, the organization
was aggressive but clumsy -- and ended up making a democratic outcome harder to
achieve. In the case of countries where democracy has been systematically
dismantled by a new generation of authoritarian leaders, including Venezuela and
Nicaragua, the OAS has failed to act at all.

The embodiment of this dysfunction has
been OAS Secretary General José Miguel
Insulza. A Chilean
socialist, Mr. Insulza has unabashedly catered to the region's left-wing leaders
-- which has frequently meant ignoring the democratic charter. Last year, he
pushed for the lifting of Cuba's ban from the OAS, even though there has been no
liberalization of the Castro dictatorship. When Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez
launched a campaign against elected leaders of his opposition, stripping them of
power and launching criminal investigations, Mr. Insulza refused to intervene,
claiming the OAS "cannot be involved in issues of internal order of member
states." Yet when leftist
Honduran President Manuel Zelaya tried to change his own country's internal
order by illegally promoting a constitutional referendum, Mr. Insulza supported
him, even offering to dispatch observers.

Now Mr. Insulza is up for reelection; a
vote is scheduled for late next month. The United States, which supplies 60
percent of the funding for the OAS's general secretariat -- $47 million in 2009
-- ought to have a prime interest in replacing him with someone who will defend
democracy. Yet the Obama administration is paralyzed: It has yet to make a
decision about whether to support a new term for Mr. Insulza. Partly because of
that waffling, no alternative candidate has emerged.

There is some reason for this. Five years
ago, an effort by the Bush administration to promote a couple of friendly
candidates backfired, and a U.S.-backed nominee this year would surely trigger
pushback by Mr. Chávez and his allies, and by center-left governments such as
Brazil. But the potential resistance to Mr. Insulza is growing. Panama,
Colombia, Canada and Mexico could be enlisted in the search for an alternative.
Even Chile's new center-right president has so far declined to endorse his
compatriot.

At a minimum, the administration should
embrace the recommendation of a recent Senate report on the OAS drawn up by the staff of
Sen. Richard G. Lugar
(R-Ind.). It calls for the OAS permanent council to require that Mr. Insulza
make a presentation about his proposals and priorities for a second term, and
for any other candidate who steps forward to offer such a presentation as well.

The United States should make clear that
it will not support any secretary general whose platform on democracy issues is
inadequate. Congress should meanwhile consider whether the United States should
continue to provide the bulk of the funding for the OAS when it fails to live by
its own charter.